Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: connections are cut immediately, data is retained for seven days, then irreversibly destroyed. That retention window and irreversibility deadline are exactly the context an agent needs and are not present in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero filler: the action first, then the immediate and delayed consequences, then the confirmation requirement. The destructive warning is front-loaded rather than buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description is responsible for the return/behavior picture, and it covers effect timing, data retention, and irreversibility well. It omits what happens to dependent resources or error conditions, which keeps it just short of fully complete for a destructive operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about service_id or idempotency_key. The retry-safety implication of idempotency_key is only obliquely covered by the idempotentHint annotation, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a service"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_domain, delete_project, and delete_env_name. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with softer alternatives such as pause_service or stop, but the resource specificity is enough to identify the target of the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides one explicit usage constraint — confirm with a human before invoking ("Ask the person first") — which is real, actionable guidance. However, it never states when to delete versus pause_service/stop/resume_service, nor any preconditions such as stopping the service first or required permissions, so routing guidance is only partial.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.